Difference between Knowledge and shit
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND SHIT
Sorry for the rough language. Unfortunately, it is necessary to call things, for what they are.
According to Ludwig Wittgenstein:
Things are not named, for what they are, since it is impossible to know.
Things are named for their function.
SHIT
When a thing does not have a function and is completely useless, it becomes “shit”. Shit is something you discard and stay away from.
Someone might ask: “But what about fertilizer? It’s shit and still useful!”
If you can apply the fertilizer, then it’s not shit for you anymore.
If you can’t apply the fertilizer, then it’s not a fertilizer for you, only shit.
KNOWLEDGE
The function of knowledge is to predict a local future; otherwise, it is shit.
It might look like a leap of thoughts, but please follow me into the abyss of philosophy.
THE PROBLEM
I would like to share knowledge with the world,
but how do I know, if I share knowledge and not shit?
I could build my assertions as arguments and refer to scientific articles.
But if my assertions are shit, then the scientific articles will transform it into complex shit and not complex knowledge.
If the scientific articles are shit, then my argument will also become shit, even if my assertions are not.
With an easy distinction between shit and knowledge, I will be able to filter out in my assertions and the scientific-articles.
SCIENTIFIC SHIT
The problem with scientific articles is their complexity. They can be hard to understand in the right context, even for scientist specialized in the field. Then how can I be able to refer correctly to a scientific article?
Multiple studies have been done, where scientists misuse statistics and methods to promote results, they have been paid to get [ref.]
John Bohannon made in 2013 a software, that could write biomedical scientific articles which looked like real scientific articles, but where pure nonsense.
He wrote 300 articles and over half of them were accepted through a peer-review [ref.]! That is a huge problem!
THE SOLUTION
Knowledge must predict a local future; otherwise, it is shit.
If you can predict something, then you can prepare for it and get an advantage.
You might have a different definition of knowledge which is perfectly fine.
The question is, what advantage does your definition give?
If your definition does not give an advantage, then the evolution will take care of it.
You might not believe in evolution – I will not question your beliefs.
Even if evolution exists, but the knowledge about it is not a better, than it’s energy consumption, then the theory of evolution will not prevail – even though evolution will.
THE PROOF (7 steps)
1) Evolution predicts that an advantage gives a higher probability of survival.
2) Shit does not give any advantage and therefore is discarded.
3) Predicting a local future gives an advantage.
4) Partial conclusion: Knowledge that can predict a local future is useful and therefore not shit.
5) I haven’t found any other knowledge, which gives an advantage that ain’t connected to predicting a local future.
6) Partial conclusion: Knowledge that can’t predict a local future must be shit.
7) Conclusion: Knowledge must predict a local future; otherwise, it is shit.
THE DISPROOF
My definition will be disproved when at least one of the following happens:
a) Evolution is proven to be shit.
b) Shit is proven to be useful, without becoming something else like a fertilizer.
c) An example, where predicting a local future, does not give an advantage.
d) I find any knowledge, which gives an advantage that isn’t connected to predicting a local future.
THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALITY
Knowledge can only predict a local future, but let’s assume that universal knowledge can predict everything.
“Predicting everything” would have to include a prediction of something that never will be predictable – which is a paradox.
THE PROBLEM WITH LOCALITY
Past knowledge, which predicted a past local future, does not have to be able to predict another local future. Past knowledge can become shit.
Past shit, which couldn’t predict a past local future, can be able to predict another local future. Past shit can become knowledge.
It means knowledge is relative. Let’s assume the following:
Person A has knowledge, which they can make a local prediction with.
You don’t understand this knowledge and therefore can’t make the same prediction.
It’s knowledge for Person A and it’s shit for you – but only in a local future.
HOW TO APPLY IT?
If you have any knowledge that can predict a local future, then you can safely share it with anyone.
You don’t need any references to any scientific articles, as long as the prediction holds.
Don’t worry if someone calls it shit because:
1) Maybe they didn’t understand it.
2) Maybe your knowledge has become past knowledge.
3) Or maybe their statement about your knowledge, can’t predict anything in a local future and therefore is shit itself.
About The Author
Brillant!
Thanks for your piece of knowledge!